Low Carb Friends

Low Carb Friends (http://www.lowcarbfriends.com/bbs/)
-   Nutritional Ketosis / High Fat, Low Carb (http://www.lowcarbfriends.com/bbs/nutritional-ketosis-high-fat-low-carb/)
-   -   Net Carbs vs Total Carbs? (http://www.lowcarbfriends.com/bbs/nutritional-ketosis-high-fat-low-carb/790433-net-carbs-vs-total-carbs.html)

mizzcase 12-01-2012 04:45 AM

Net Carbs vs Total Carbs?
 
In my readings on NK, I've noticed it advocates 50 total carbs/day, not necessarily net carbs. I know net carbs is an Atkins created thing more or less, but why does NK push the overall carb count?

Fiber has no effect, right? I don't get anywhere near 20 net or 50 total anyway, just curious.

cici52 12-01-2012 08:10 AM

I absolutely don't know the reason for this but did have a thought regarding the NC vs TC on packaged foods. That being the effect of supposed undigestible carbs on blood sugar. I'm thinking of tests done on the response of test subjects to Dreamfields vs regular pasta which was an eye opener. Apparently it did not perform as advertized.

mizzcase 12-01-2012 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cici52 (Post 16110500)
I absolutely don't know the reason for this but did have a thought regarding the NC vs TC on packaged foods. That being the effect of supposed undigestible carbs on blood sugar. I'm thinking of tests done on the response of test subjects to Dreamfields vs regular pasta which was an eye opener. Apparently it did not perform as advertized.

Is Dreamfield a high fiber pasta? What were the BS responses?

brandilynn1313 12-01-2012 09:30 AM

Dreamfield seems to not affect blood sugar *as much* when its cooked al dente. But cook it longer and its a regular blood sugar bomb, and eat leftovers and its a blood sugar bomb.

I am just a straight up carb gal. My theory for me is when *I* start trying to do tricky math, I am trying to get myself out of a jam, and so I just grant the same sneaky nature to folks trying to sell me something. :}

Which of course doesnt make it true, but just because you are paranoid doesnt not mean they ARENT out to get you.

jillybean720 12-01-2012 09:56 AM

There is definitely confusion as to how one should calculate "net" carbs. Personally, if my total carbs are high-ish, but that included a lot of fiber, I don't sweat it. However, when some calculate net carbs, they also deduct sugar alcohols (which I don't entirely trust), glycerin (which, as I understand it, only has no glucose/insulin impact IF you're NOT already in ketosis), and, like Dreamfield's, some finagled "undigestible" carbs. I just count totals because, quite frankly, it's easier/less confusing. The ONLY thing I could see considering is fiber, but then I think you open the door for more total carbs because you think, "Hey, it's okay to have this whole grain [item] since it has XX grams of fiber..." It can become a slippery slope since fiber is usually found in items with more total carbs to begin with.

shelley 12-01-2012 11:27 AM

I do total carbs. It's a difficult concept with all we've got in our brains for years about the importance of fiber. I have read in a few books (don't ask me which ones at this point), that it's not about fiber at all and it's not necessary in the way we all "think" if we are doing NK eating.

reddarin 12-01-2012 12:00 PM

I saw your post yesterday and I've been thinking about it a bit.

I think that the Total Carbs for NK concerns the way the body responds to the whole carb not the carb minus the fiber or whatever.

Phinney, I think, said that once you get above 50g of carbs you start entering the area where your kidneys begin retaining water.

The Net Carbs where fiber and/or sugar alcohols are subtracted are more about the glycemic load and blood sugar. I guess that the pathway that controls kidney response is different and that means that other affects from total carbs are felt without regard to GI and BS impact.

mizzcase 12-01-2012 12:14 PM

Thanks red, that makes sense! I figured 50g was the water retaining threshold.

jillybean720 12-02-2012 02:49 PM

To second something shelley mentioned, most people automatically think fiber = good. But on a LC/HF plan, I don't think consuming fiber is as important (if at all). Kind of like how we don't need much vitamin C when eating VLC since we're not processing grains regularly (which requires more vit C).

cici52 12-02-2012 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillybean720 (Post 16112940)
To second something shelley mentioned, most people automatically think fiber = good. But on a LC/HF plan, I don't think consuming fiber is as important (if at all). Kind of like how we don't need much vitamin C when eating VLC since we're not processing grains regularly (which requires more vit C).

I did not know this.

reddarin 12-02-2012 03:36 PM

That is true. If your good fats are at high enough levels you don't particularly need fiber, even for regularity.

shelley 12-02-2012 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reddarin (Post 16113044)
That is true. If your good fats are at high enough levels you don't particularly need fiber, even for regularity.

Yup...thanks Darin and Jilly for backing up my "memory". At my age, you never know, especially since I'm also dyslexic and can't remember what I read sometimes. But the nutritionist who does lowcarb/ketogenic eating always told me (and I know I read it somewhere), that no veggies/lettuces, salads, etc. are necessary at all in a ketogenic/low carb eating plan. I haven't had any veggies or salad since Thanksgiving...more than a week ago. Sounds strange and my brain tells me to have them, but I don't!

Mobear 12-03-2012 04:22 AM

I follow Dr. Bernstein and in his first "Diabetes Solution" book he wanted all the carbs counted...so it was 30g of total carbs and no subracting. Since then he has revised the book a couple of times and I do believe he says it is ok to subtract 1/2 of the fiber grams. He explains this with the idea that soluble fiber is digested while insoluble is not digested. Labeling doesn't distinguish between the 2 types.

Personally I find subtracting half the fiber a pain, so I just go with 30g total and leave it at that. Somedays I am slightly under and somedays I may be a couple of grams over and just try not to stress about it!

Dr. Bernstein never ever, and still doesn't, agreed with subtracting sugar alcohols.

jillybean720 12-03-2012 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mobear (Post 16113821)
I follow Dr. Bernstein and in his first "Diabetes Solution" book he wanted all the carbs counted...so it was 30g of total carbs and no subracting.

I believe he is also the one who planted the idea in my head of limiting carbs to 5 or fewer per meal/snack, as those low levels were too small to trigger an insulin response in the body. I did that for about 6 weeks once and saw excellent weight loss even though my total carbs for the day were still about the same as when I was just regular low-carbing. I need to try to get back to it...

cici52 12-03-2012 11:14 AM

That is nice to know Jilly.

svenskamae 12-03-2012 03:18 PM

I track net carbs rather than total carbs. But I'm eating very clean/primal, so nothing that I eat contains sugar alcohols, glycerine, regular or artificial sweeteners of any kind, etc. Given that my carbs come almost entirely from low starch veggies, it seemed reasonable to substract out the fiber and track net carbs, in my case.

panabax 12-04-2012 03:04 PM

The whole point of NK is maintaining ketosis for its purported benefits. To do this, carbs have to stay low or insulin will kick in which will not only lower BG it will also lower BK levels. Fiber does not pass through the intestines and does not effect BG levels at all (other than to keep them lower when combined with digestible carbs). I can see no reason to include fiber in any of our daily carb calculations. Hell, I take psyllium husk fiber daily (15-20 grams).

The real number to watch is the BK levels on your meter. If your levels are low, reduce the carbs/protein. Experiment with reducing just fiber and, if anything, your ketone levels should go down even further because the BG buffering it provides is now gone.

Just my $0.02. I am new to NK, but not to any of these general concepts.

wildflower 12-04-2012 03:39 PM

I'm doing total carbs -- it's just easier!

reddarin 12-04-2012 03:39 PM

Phinney is very specific about total carbs being counted rather than net carbs. He wrote the book on NK. It'd be a good question for Jimmy Moore to ask him next time he has him on one of his podcast.

I'm pretty sure that he said that the kidneys are signaled to start retaining fluid at 50+ total grams of carbs so it appears that BG is not the only metabolic player in the state of NK.

clackley 12-05-2012 05:56 AM

Maybe the question should be, 'are all carbs equal when counting'? I do subtract fibre from avocados, low carb veg, but not sugar alcohols. In fact, I avoid sugar alcohols with about as much vigor as sugar. But in the general question, technically they could be subtracted.

panabax 12-05-2012 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reddarin (Post 16117520)
Phinney is very specific about total carbs being counted rather than net carbs.

I could not find that reference in either of his books.

Quote:

Originally Posted by reddarin (Post 16117520)
I'm pretty sure that he said that the kidneys are signaled to start retaining fluid at 50+ total grams of carbs so it appears that BG is not the only metabolic player in the state of NK.

I could not find this reference either.

reddarin 12-06-2012 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panabax (Post 16119640)
I could not find that reference in either of his books.

Re: Phinney stating total carbs.

Really?

Quote:

Originally Posted by panabax (Post 16119640)
I could not find this reference either.

Re: Kidneys and water retention at ~50g+ total carbs.

It stuck out to me because it was something I'd never heard before but I was sadly remiss in making a note of it when I read it or heard it on a podcast. If I run across it again I'll post it here.

reddarin 12-06-2012 09:19 AM

panabax, that is you in your avatar photo? What did you think of Phinney's Performance book when you read it? He wrote it for athletes like you it looks like.

Did you find his protein requirements formula made sense? I mean, was it a dramatic departure from what you had learned before reading his book. Did his reasoning behind it make sense and sell you on it?

I haven't read the Performance book so I am curious to hear your opinion.

:)

panabax 12-06-2012 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reddarin (Post 16121080)
panabax, that is you in your avatar photo? What did you think of Phinney's Performance book when you read it? He wrote it for athletes like you it looks like.

Did you find his protein requirements formula made sense? I mean, was it a dramatic departure from what you had learned before reading his book. Did his reasoning behind it make sense and sell you on it?

I haven't read the Performance book so I am curious to hear your opinion.

Yes, that's me crossing the finish line this summer at Ironman Couer d'Alene (2.4 mile swim, 112 mile bike, 26.2 mile run).

I read the performance book before the lifestyle book. The logic is clearly contrary to endurance sports nutrition dogma. However, I immediately identified with the logic in the performance book and started NK the next day. I am 3 weeks in and am running the Dallas Marathon this Sunday. I will let you know next week what I think of the performance concepts in the book.

reddarin 12-07-2012 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panabax (Post 16122248)
Yes, that's me crossing the finish line this summer at Ironman Couer d'Alene (2.4 mile swim, 112 mile bike, 26.2 mile run).

I read the performance book before the lifestyle book. The logic is clearly contrary to endurance sports nutrition dogma. However, I immediately identified with the logic in the performance book and started NK the next day. I am 3 weeks in and am running the Dallas Marathon this Sunday. I will let you know next week what I think of the performance concepts in the book.

Great job! and you look awesome dude :up:

How tall are you? Great job on the extraordinary weight loss too.

3 weeks is not enough time to become keto-adapted for a marathon is it? I thought several weeks minimum was the norm?

reddarin 12-07-2012 06:53 AM

What about the protein requirements formula? *That* part I am very curious about concerning an enthusiast like you. Or did you not use it? If not, why? If you did, what BF% did you choose? Your current BF or something different?

Beg pardon for the grilling. :)

reddarin 12-07-2012 06:54 AM

You were full time LC while training and performing in the Iron Man? No carb loading days or anything like that?

panabax 12-07-2012 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reddarin (Post 16122856)
Great job! and you look awesome dude :up:

How tall are you? Great job on the extraordinary weight loss too.

3 weeks is not enough time to become keto-adapted for a marathon is it? I thought several weeks minimum was the norm?

5' 10"

The performance book says 2-3 weeks. My maximum weekly running volume in this training set was 44 miles per week. I did two 20 mile runs in my build up. The second 20 miler was 3 days into NK and I was clearly still burning glucose. The next weekend, I had a 4 miler and a 12 miler. I felt like I could barely due the 4 miler. I got through the 12 the next day, but it felt bad.

Last weekend, however, was a different story. I did 3 miles and 8 miles Saturday and Sunday and the felt great. I can clearly "feel" a difference. In a perfect world, I would like to have had another 2 months to adapt, but it is what it is and I'm all in now. I will let you know how it goes next week.

Candidly, I don't think their is a "norm" for ketoadaptation into endurance sports. Low carb is definitely counter culture in the endurance sports community. Most people "in the know" would just mock me for making the attempt. For me, however, I just signed up for the race to give me something to train for to set me up for next year's triathlon season. The training is now in the bag. So this marathon is now a grand experiment.

reddarin 12-07-2012 07:50 AM

5'10"? So you're goal is very low BF?

Yes, please post your post-marathon thoughts on your performance!

That is very interesting though about the adaptation period for sports. Once the glycogen is gone what is a body to do? Adjust or die. Does that imply that training like that while becoming adapted forces faster keto-adaptation??? Seems so. Of course, you were already LC though you didn't mention your use of carbs while training for and doing the IM competition.

panabax 12-07-2012 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reddarin (Post 16122862)
What about the protein requirements formula? *That* part I am very curious about concerning an enthusiast like you. Or did you not use it? If not, why? If you did, what BF% did you choose? Your current BF or something different?

I used my goal weight of 175 and my goal BF% of 10% to calculate a lean mass of 153 lbs. .6-1 g/lb LBM equals 92-153 g/day. I am currently on the low side of that because I am trying to maintain higher ketone levels which have not consistently materialized for me. I am really still dialing in this WOE and trying to hit 80/15/5 is a real challenge. When I get adequate protein on that formula (say 100g) that pushes my total calories to 2666 which is higher than where I want to be so I have not really hit a sweet spot yet with respect to my macronutrients. Although, presumably my body will use the protein for protein first, before gluconeogenesis, but I don't know that. If my carbs are low and my ketones are still low, then protein seems the only place to cut back. Also, I am not clear where stored fat plays in the 80/15/5 analysis. If I am trying to get 80% of my calories from fat, does that include dietary and stored fat assuming I am in deficit? I assume it must. My BMR is probably in the 2600 kcal range, so maybe I need to assume in my calculation the burning of non-dietary fat as well. I don't know.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:40 PM.